The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Target sued for poor accessibility

Looks like blind poeple do care whether or not they can use a website. I hope they win and a lot of webmasters take notice. I don;t mean they become fearful if litigation. I mean they understand that the visually impaired do make purchases online, and it seems based on this article, are avid online shoppers.

i think that is really stupid to make a whole lawsuit out of especially since the person wants 'damages' to be paid which i believe there have been no 'damages', that is just rediculuous.

they say the goal is to 'educate' people about making websites more usable for blind people or people with disabilities but yeah right there are better ways to educate people than to sue them. i dont think target did anything wrong, i think the most they can do it ask them to fix their website up a bit but they shouldnt be charged for something stupid like this especially since they are obviously not the only one, guess they just got unlucky to get picked on first.

i think that is really stupid to make a whole lawsuit out of especially since the person wants 'damages' to be paid which i believe there have been no 'damages', that is just rediculuous.

Um, if they're violating the law then why shouldn't he be able to file suit?

Originally Posted by THE ARTICLE

Specifically, the suit argues that Target is violating the California Disabled Persons Act, which guarantees full and equal access for people with disabilities to all public places. It also argues that Target is violating the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, because blind patrons have been denied full and equal access to Target.com and have been provided services inferior to non-disabled patrons.

Originally Posted by smittenbite

they say the goal is to 'educate' people about making websites more usable for blind people or people with disabilities but yeah right there are better ways to educate people than to sue them.

Not really; the threat of losses tends to light a fire under people that can't be matched with a pamphlet.

Um, if they're violating the law then why shouldn't he be able to file suit?

Because I guess it's still possible to talk about a situation prior going to court. They are thousands of laws out there and their number is increasing every day so I suppose anybody might not be aware of each of them.

I am really starting to feel bad about all those people willing to sue any people or company for just any reason. Perhaps I am a bit sensitiv about this today as I got 4 calls and 3 mails threatening me of various kind of legal action from a guy who was complaining about a quote made about him in one of my client's forum.

Because I guess it's still possible to talk about a situation prior going to court.

And they did:

The NFB wrote to Target in May, asking it to make the site more accessible, according to the plaintiffs. Negotiations broke down in January, which led to the filing of the lawsuit, the organization said.

Using your unpaid time to add free content to SitePoint Pty Ltd's portfolio?

i think that is really stupid to make a whole lawsuit out of especially since the person wants 'damages' to be paid which i believe there have been no 'damages', that is just rediculuous.

they say the goal is to 'educate' people about making websites more usable for blind people or people with disabilities but yeah right there are better ways to educate people than to sue them. i dont think target did anything wrong, i think the most they can do it ask them to fix their website up a bit but they shouldnt be charged for something stupid like this especially since they are obviously not the only one, guess they just got unlucky to get picked on first.

This is yet another example of a student sueing a company for "What-ever" reason in order to make some extra money.

Yes, the guy is visually impared, and to a point, i can see where hes coming from, however, certainly disabilties rule out certain people. A wheelchair dependant person wouldnt sue a Rugby team because he couldnt play, so why should a Visually impared person sue a website because he cant make a purchase?

The article states ...

"Sexton, who is president of the California Association of Blind Students, said he has always been too frustrated with Target.com to reach the point of actually buying something. "

Forgive me for being rude, But which part of "Well Dont Then" is this guy missing?

We have cases like this in the UK all the time. Chefs sueing resturants because they've fallen over spagetti. Just recently infact, a women working in a Lawyers office Slipped on some paperwork, And SUED the company for damages using another Law firm!

This is yet another example of a student sueing a company for "What-ever" reason in order to make some extra money.

Yes, the guy is visually impared, and to a point, i can see where hes coming from, however, certainly disabilties rule out certain people. A wheelchair dependant person wouldnt sue a Rugby team because he couldnt play, so why should a Visually impared person sue a website because he cant make a purchase?

The point is, that a website has a legal responsibility to ensure that it's website is accessable to disabled customers, in the same way that a retail store is (Minimum width between shelves, ramped entrance etc).

I think that it's a shame that someone has to sue for companies to sit up and take notice, but it seems the only way to get them to listen is to hit them where it hurts - the pocket.

I agree that this person should be doing this more to raise awareness. I'd like to think that any damages awarded are donated to an appropriate charity.

If they had to use an alternate means of acquiring that product and it cost them money (paying someone to help them, having to physically go to the store to buy it) do you not think they deserve to be compensated for Target breaking the law?

I've been wondering if something similar will happen in the UK. There's been potential for it to happen since 2005, possibly longer but I guess big business is safer here as we don't have the same sort of sueing culture. I think the most likely to use it would be charities.

Should the company that owns the website or the web dev. company be responsible for the lack of accessibility - especially if it's not specificed in a spec. or contract?

target site

I don't think the person should win a lawsuit over it, but they do have a right to be frustrated. The home page's text can not be enlarged (in IE anyway) and if they wanted to use a text reader I think the 68 nested tables would be a problem. Target doesn't seem to be too concerned about alienating potential customers, the page is far from having valid mark-up.

If the customer filed a complaint first and the complaint was not addressed, then it's within reason to file a lawsuit. If the customer didn't even file a complaint, then I'd say the customer is just trying to get some cash.

Baltimore-based plaintiffs' attorney Daniel Goldstein said the suit's larger goal is educating companies about Web site accessibility issues that can be fixed relatively inexpensively.

It may not be too expensive for Target to adjust their site but what about the Mom and Pop shops? You know this will trickle down to every living thing. The technology is just too young to start expecting every minority group to get their way. Are they going to complain the site is fully aural, too?

BTW, I had three friends who are blind and I dated for years a girl who's whole family of seven was blind. So I'm totally aware of their problems. Ways come about for these people to be able to do such things because a market spring up around it. Trying to force the issue at this time is beyond comprehension. (I will withhold my opinion of lawyers)

I still dont get it. How is an ATL-text going to be usfull so someone that cant see it? This is liking sueing McDonalds cas there hot chocolate is too hot when you spill it on yourself! They will never win...

*Edit... I think Target should counter sue the people that are suing them for the costs is takes to add ALT-tags on each of there images, too add a sitemap, and to show there prices better.

If they win then this will give everyone will try to take avantage of stupid idea to get money of of big corporate businesses.

I have an idea! Tomarow im going to go into the movie theater and watch a movie, then im going to tell them im deaf and Im going to sue them for one million dollars because they do not supply deaf word at the bottom of the screen so i can read whats going on in the movie(subtitles).

these guys are just some stupid college liberal group getting them publicity. This is why they do these things...i personally think it's best just to ignore them...

I still dont get it. How is an ATL-text going to be usfull so someone that cant see it?

There is special software that speaks what is on the monitor that blind people use so that they can use computers. Jaws is one example of this. Jaws can read HTML, but oddly structured sites can be confusing, as can unlabeled images.

Using your unpaid time to add free content to SitePoint Pty Ltd's portfolio?